YOU DON'T HAVE to be a liberal - or a Democrat, or black - to
be appalled by Trent Lott. You only have to be enough of a
mensch to regard Jim Crow and its trappings as one of the most
shameful chapters in American history. Is that the view of
Lott's Republican colleagues in the US Senate? If so, let them
prove it by replacing him as majority leader when the new
Senate convenes next month.

A recap for latecomers to this story:

Last week, at a 100th birthday party for retiring Senator Strom
Thurmond, Lott offered these words of praise:

''I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran
for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the
rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had
all these problems over all these years, either.''

Thurmond ran for president in 1948. He was the candidate of the
States Rights Party, a ''Dixiecrat'' who had bolted the
Democratic fold in a protest against civil rights. The platform
Thurmond ran on was blunt - ''We stand for the segregation of
the races and the racial integrity of each race'' - and he
matched it with bluntness of his own. ''All the laws of
Washington and all the bayonets of the army,'' he declared,
''cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our
churches, and our places of recreation and amusement.'' On
Election Day he carried four states, one of which was Trent
Lott's Mississippi.

If Lott supported Thurmond in 1948, who could blame him? He was
7 years old and presumably didn't know better. But what
possible excuse is there for extolling Thurmond's nakedly
racist campaign now, 54 years later? Or for claiming that
America would be better off if Thurmond had won? Better off
with lynch law and ''whites only'' drinking fountains? Not even
Thurmond himself, who renounced his segregationist views years
ago, would say such a thing. It is no wonder Lott's testimonial
was met, as The Washington Post reported, with ''an audible
gasp and general silence.''

This was no unwitting faux pas. Lott has said the same thing
before. The New York Times reported Wednesday that he told a
Mississippi rally in 1980, ''If we had elected [Thurmond] 30
years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.'' Lott was
then a little-known congressman, and his words went unnoticed.
Today he is a powerful GOP senator, and his words triggered a
storm.

It's clear that Lott meant what he said - otherwise, why would
he refuse to take it back? Or to at least make it plain that he
abominates segregation? Instead, his first response to the
criticism was a truculent statement from his press secretary:
''Senator Lott's remarks were intended to pay tribute to a
remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more
into these comments is wrong.''

When that stonewall failed to calm the storm, Lott tried again.
''A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I
embrace the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be
further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was
offended by my statement.''

Anyone offended by his toast to Thurmond should have been
offended all over again by this smarmy nonapology. ''A poor
choice of words?'' On the contrary, the words he chose were
only too clear. But rather than make an equally clear show of
contrition, he deigned to apologize only ''to anyone who was
offended.''

Worse yet was his bland euphemism for the ugly system of
apartheid the Dixiecrats championed: ''the discarded policies
of the past.'' Not the hateful policies or the cruel policies
or the evil policies. Even now, Lott cannot bring himself to
denounce Jim Crow. The most he will say is that it was -
discarded.

Lott's nostalgia for the pre-civil-rights South is an old
story. In a 1999 column titled "Renounce the racists, Senator
Lott", I reviewed his ties to the racist Council of
Conservative Citizens, an organization whose newsletter has
fulminated against ''miscegenation'' and ''race-mixing'' and
whose Web site features articles about ''the struggle for the
survival of white people on this continent.'' (At the moment,
its Web site also features a prominent photo of Lott beside a
headline saluting his ''courage.'')

Though Lott claimed at the time to have ''no firsthand
knowledge'' of the CCC's beliefs, he was in fact a longtime
supporter. He had addressed its gatherings, hosted its
officials in Washington, and asked one of its top operatives to
play a role in his Senate campaign. ''The people in this
room,'' Lott told the CCC's national board in 1992, ''stand for
the right principles and the right philosophy.''

Mississippi voters are free to send anyone they want to the US
Senate - even a witless yahoo who waxes nostalgic for the
pre-civil rights South. But Republicans in the Senate are under
no obligation to make him their leader. Lott is a disgrace to
his grand old party. The longer his party waits to repudiate
him, the steeper the price it will pay.